IBM began mass adoption of iOS prior to its exclusive partnership with Apple, Inc.

When Apple and IBM announced plans to codevelop new iOS apps and jointly sell and support iPhones and iPad to enterprise customers, the news was greeted as if it were a new experiment. However, the deal is actually an extension of IBM's mobile strategy that has included massive deployments of iOS devices and native apps.

In a 2012 presentation on the company's "mobile transformation," IBM described its global organization as involving more than 425,000 employees and detailed that it managed 500,000 PCs, most of which were Lenovo (formerly IBM) PCs running Windows.

The company also detailed 100,000 "corporate liable" mobile phones (including 30,000 BlackBerry devices and 29,000 other smartphones and tablets) in addition to 50,000 employees who were reimbursed for their personal wireless expenses.

IBM's mobile push

At the time, IBM described an internal project (MESA) aimed at creating a "framework of reusable web-services that can be leveraged by mobile applications," and detailed over 40 internal IBM web apps targeting at mobile devices. The company also made prominent mention of Android, and detailed mobile device requirements that restricted some corporate data to BlackBerry devices.

However, last November IBM acquired Fiberlink, obtaining its MaaS360 cloud-based Mobile Device Management service and integrating into its product portfolio.

IBM isn't just selling MaaS360 as an alternative to other MDM offerings (including Good Technology, Microsoft's Enterprise Mobile Suite and BlackBerry Enterprise Server); it also began aggressively deploying the product internally, starting with IBM's CIO Office.

In March, IBM issued a white paper outlining that its "CIO Office manages about one hundred-thousand IBM employees' smartphones and tablets," and had initiated plans to migrate 90 percent of these devices to MaaS360 "within one month."

Bill Tworek, IBM's executive IT architect for CIO Office, noted that his group began "on-boarding devices on MaaS360 five days after the close of acquisition--15,000 on the first day and over 30,000 in the first week," adding that "it took us less than 3 days to integrate MaaS360 into the IBM architecture and by moving from an on-premises model to a cloud model we'll save US $500,000."

Given that the majority of mobile device at IBM had been BlackBerry phones, that suggests a rapid migration from BES, an "on-premises" MDM that is not inexpensive to license and operate. That also underscores why BlackBerry's stock took such a hit when IBM and Apple announced their partnership.

Enterprise apps going native with iOS

However, there are two other platform shifts IBM's rapid migration and "MobileFirst" strategy highlight. First is that IBM is no longer targeting web apps as the way to approach mobile development.

Echoing the observations of FaceBook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, who in late 2012 stated that "the biggest mistake we made as a company was betting too much on HTML5 instead of native [platform development]," IBM's new partnership with Apple focuses on native apps.

"Right now, engineers, designers, and developers from both organizations are working on more than 100 end-to-end mobile solutions, including a new category of mobile apps, that are ready for the enterprise," the company states. "Each will address a specific industry need and is being designed from the ground up with cloud software services for analytics, data security, and device management native to iOS."

Building native apps for iOS that are designed to sell iPhone and iPad as part of a compete, managed solution is a primary blow to BlackBerry's enterprise-centric strategy aimed at resuscitating its sales. But it's also a blow to Android, which lacks critical enterprise support in software and introduces hardware fragmentation issues.

It's also more bad news for Microsoft's struggling Windows Phone, which is currently selling primarily to low end consumer markets. Additionally, it's also a bad for Windows PCs, hybrid devices and tablets that are struggling to fend off sales erosion due to the increasing adoption of iPads among mobile workers.

New push in Enterprise adoption of Macs

Outside of iOS, there's also another significant new benefactor to IBM's partnership with Apple: Mac sales. That's because native iOS app development requires Apple's Xcode, which remains exclusive to OS X.

Roman Foeckl, the chief executive of CoSoSys, an enterprise security firm that sells PC security and Mobile Device Management tools, noted in an email that "Apple has learned a lot from its huge deployment of iOS devices in the enterprise. With iOS devices gaining popularity amongst traditionally Windows agnostic users, the tide has started to shift dramatically." "with IBM's added expertise about enterprise needs, we could finally start to see a significant shift in the balance over control of the enterprise IT" - Roman Foeckl, CEO CoSoSys

Foeckl added, "This trend is confirmed by yesterday's Apple quarterly announcement of a 17.6% increase in Mac sales (Q3 2013 vs. Q3 2014) with a total of 4.41m Macs sold. Many of them are being sold to enterprise customers and the partnership announcement with IBM will continue fueling this trend. IBM knows the enterprise needs.

"The IBM - Apple partnership announced last week was seen as unexpected, but in reality IBM has been one of the biggest users of iOS and Mac products for several years now. What was surprising, however, is that this announcement happened the same week as the news that Microsoft was reducing their workforce by 18,000 (even though mainly effecting Nokia).

"Apple products have been gaining serious market share in the enterprise over the past few years, and now with IBM's added expertise about enterprise needs, we could finally start to see a significant shift in the balance over control of the enterprise IT."

Up until now, I've always thought that Windows will always remain a fixture in enterprise computing no matter how successful iOS is. But IBM and Apple in partnership, they probably have enough pieces to offer a migration path for erstwhile Windows shops. It won't happen overnight but consider the possibilities.

Would be quite karmic, the two companies that Gates sort of treacherously pulled the rug from under come back 30 years later to bury Microsoft. It's so Shakespearean. Or Sophoclean.

Up until now, I've always thought that Windows will always remain a fixture in enterprise computing no matter how successful iOS is. But IBM and Apple in partnership, they probably have enough pieces to offer a migration path for erstwhile Windows shops. It won't happen overnight but consider the possibilities.

Would be quite karmic, the two companies that Gates sort of treacherously pulled the rug from under come back 30 years later to bury Microsoft. It's so Shakespearean. Or Sophoclean.

..... a dish best served cold ....

Next, add Google to the menu ...

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

I painfully remember the old days of ‘embrace and extend’ which usually ended with Macs being frozen out of business and online commerce. I remember the ‘this site only works with IE’ popups. I remember the disdain and denigration of Apple users (well, that’s still going on via the Android sycophant crowd). This seems to be karma coming back in spades to Microsoft.

Would be quite karmic, the two companies that Gates sort of treacherously pulled the rug from under come back 30 years later to bury Microsoft. It's so Shakespearean. Or Sophoclean.

It's also a bit irrelevant to the bulk of buyers who today don't even remember the events you refer to, because of forgetfulness of age, or inexperience of youth. But Bill Gates built a giant company, took his money and got out, with enough time left in life to enjoy the spoils of his business victories. The Microsoft of today is a different company. Different people, different products, different goals and different MO. Just as Apple is a very different company than it was 30 years ago--it is no longer the underdog, it no longer has its founders running the show. Unfortunately, Mr. Jobs didn't get the same opportunity to enjoy his spoils that Gates did. But that's life and the risk we take. IBM is different too. As is HP. I'm not saying that the companies are any worse now, or better, just that they're different. They endure beyond their people, as is the nature of a corporation, unless they get bought up. The sands of time will continue to shift.

The application of ancient philosophies to describe the situation is just... well out of place, to my thinking.

The MaasS360 website already touts increased security and control with iOS7 using their cloud MDM.

My takeaway from this article is that HTML5 isn't as efficient as expected, and a "closed wall" solution (iOS) is more optimal, even if you throw all your eggs in one basket.

And when corporations begin to assess iOS8 / OSX Yosemite and test out the potential benefits of Continuity innovations like Handoff, AirDrop & Notifications (working with 3rd party and web apps), the beachhead will have been cleared for MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros to invade the Enterprise in the wake of iPad & iPhone - GERONIMO!

Up until now, I've always thought that Windows will always remain a fixture in enterprise computing no matter how successful iOS is. But IBM and Apple in partnership, they probably have enough pieces to offer a migration path for erstwhile Windows shops. It won't happen overnight but consider the possibilities.

Would be quite karmic, the two companies that Gates sort of treacherously pulled the rug from under come back 30 years later to bury Microsoft. It's so Shakespearean. Or Sophoclean.

"Hold your friends close, but your enemies closer"

IBM will be a fixture in the corporation until someone can virtualize a VM/MVS/zOS into a VMware partition that is as fast as the fastest current mainframe for less money.

IBM has reinvented itself into a business consulting company that takes everything it custom builds, and makes a product out of it, because if IBM or one it's customer's has the problem, another 20 are out there looking for the same solution... especially if IBM consultants have the run of the CTO suite.

And when corporations begin to assess iOS8 / OSX Yosemite and test out the potential benefits of Continuity innovations like Handoff, AirDrop & Notifications (working with 3rd party and web apps), the beachhead will have been cleared for MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros to invade the Enterprise in the wake of iPad & iPhone - GERONIMO!

as stated in other threads... the numbers of devices sold will be amazingly small given the huge consumer market Apple has achieved (and the BYOD that can be exploited). However, the cost for Dell/HP/Lenovo to remain in the WinTel device business will increase dramatically, as that's where their only profits are.

I painfully remember the old days of ‘embrace and extend’ which usually ended with Macs being frozen out of business and online commerce. I remember the ‘this site only works with IE’ popups. I remember the disdain and denigration of Apple users (well, that’s still going on via the Android sycophant crowd). This seems to be karma coming back in spades to Microsoft.

In the web world... this was the control feature... in the App world, frameworks will still only live at the interface veneer, and it will be some obvious architectural choices made to generalize features or have dual logic stacks to the same end for different platforms.

My guess is that Android and WinMobile Apps will continued to be developed against the same backend (non corporation wants to be single sourced), but the 1st choice will be iOS, for obvious reasons. The worst scenarios being the 'code builder' development kits that drive interfaces down to the lowest common denominator (C++,Java, Dalvik, C#, Swift all out of the same metacode with 'interface frameworks' on the client and server side to convert back and forth)

It's also a bit irrelevant to the bulk of buyers who today don't even remember the events you refer to, because of forgetfulness of age, or inexperience of youth. But Bill Gates built a giant company, took his money and got out, with enough time left in life to enjoy the spoils of his business victories. The Microsoft of today is a different company. Different people, different products, different goals and different MO. Just as Apple is a very different company than it was 30 years ago--it is no longer the underdog, it no longer has its founders running the show. Unfortunately, Mr. Jobs didn't get the same opportunity to enjoy his spoils that Gates did. But that's life and the risk we take. IBM is different too. As is HP. I'm not saying that the companies are any worse now, or better, just that they're different. They endure beyond their people, as is the nature of a corporation, unless they get bought up. The sands of time will continue to shift.

The application of ancient philosophies to describe the situation is just... well out of place, to my thinking.

Before you object to me anthropomorphizing corporations, be advised that no less than the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that . . . corporations are people, my friend. :-)

This time around IBM is much smarter in many ways. However, like always, IBM knows how to take care of clients and make money where most corporations fumble around and give variable service while making less money.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

It's also a bit irrelevant to the bulk of buyers who today don't even remember the events you refer to, because of forgetfulness of age, or inexperience of youth. But Bill Gates built a giant company, took his money and got out, with enough time left in life to enjoy the spoils of his business victories. The Microsoft of today is a different company. Different people, different products, different goals and different MO. Just as Apple is a very different company than it was 30 years ago--it is no longer the underdog, it no longer has its founders running the show. Unfortunately, Mr. Jobs didn't get the same opportunity to enjoy his spoils that Gates did. But that's life and the risk we take. IBM is different too. As is HP. I'm not saying that the companies are any worse now, or better, just that they're different. They endure beyond their people, as is the nature of a corporation, unless they get bought up. The sands of time will continue to shift.

The application of ancient philosophies to describe the situation is just... well out of place, to my thinking.

Before you object to me anthropomorphizing corporations, be advised that no less than the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that . . . corporations are people, my friend. :-)

Indeed, "corporations are people," brought to you by the same government that declared rabbit meat is "chicken," and that it takes no less than 2.4 cherries per slice of pie, to still be sold as "Cherry Pie."

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

This time around IBM is much smarter in many ways. However, like always, IBM knows how to take care of clients and make money where most corporations fumble around and give variable service while making less money.

Where I've heard that before is not by clients... but by employees, typically around performance review time.

The trade off for this is that most of the rank and file IBM workers are grist for the 'taking care of clients' mill.

A) Great performers [those willing to sacrifice more than 40 hours a week, family life, etc...] are moved up the chain,

B) Poor performers are replaced by offshore

C) middle of the road, The 'I'm here for a steady income, doing my job' sort of folks are told that their job is now 125% of the former job in the hopes they move into Category C

D) new hires.

I've lived in IBM company towns, and I've had several friends/relatives relatives work for IBM. All but one (and he was an A... moving every 3 years, overnight flights from Austin to Toyko to Sao Paulo and back driving a customer critical defect deep into the development team) got out because of how there was no humanity in human resources.

Oh, and that one... Died of a heart attack at 54... first one in our family to have a heart attack. Not sayin' ... but just sayin'

In the web world... this was the control feature... in the App world, frameworks will still only live at the interface veneer, and it will be some obvious architectural choices made to generalize features or have dual logic stacks to the same end for different platforms.

My guess is that Android and WinMobile Apps will continued to be developed against the same backend (non corporation wants to be single sourced), but the 1st choice will be iOS, for obvious reasons. The worst scenarios being the 'code builder' development kits that drive interfaces down to the lowest common denominator (C++,Java, Dalvik, C#, Swift all out of the same metacode with 'interface frameworks' on the client and server side to convert back and forth)

The way you talk, you would be perfect when speaking technobabble on NCIS.

Key point here. IBM has a new shiny object to sell to execs... "We _KNOW_ Apple"

That's all they wanted.

Apple gets a huge support partner ("hey, if you don't like the Apple Store, you can always call IBM"), and a channel, but in the end, a couple million new phones a year is almost background noise, and tablets... if you get half that many, you're lucky (but yes, that's a bigger deal).

The biggest deal IBM focusing on iOS integration into every enterprise (including their own) that lets them. That's a huge testbed, and huger still lock-in.

Now I agree with RXC in that IBM software is just one notch above horrid, but it's good enough for people who are paid to be trained, and trainers paid to train. But no matter. Enterprise Sales are the 'high ground' you want... you have to sell 2 or 3 people for thousands of seats, and once in, they have to amortize that decision (and all installations, training, skills, software, processes) for 5-7 years, and the next decision round, you're the leader (what's the war adage... it takes 7 times the strength to knock someone off a hill than it does to hold it? and Corporations using IBM have a strong siege support system [see Lotus Notes... It should have died 20 years ago... but most corps still use it]). Apple sees a Win and a lever into the 'long game' , IBM sees a 'not lose' (which for one of the 2 or 3 'original' tech companies [ATT, IBM, and ??? ] Not losing is #Winning), and together, after 4 or 5 years, there could be some magic.... or not, and not is par for the course in Apple/NeXT/IBM relationships.

As of today IBM's market cap is $194B. How exactly does someone buy them? I suppose they could merge with Apple but partnerships like this make more sense IMO.

Neither makes sense. Apple needs to stay focused on what they're good at and a massive merger or buyout will cause too much chaos. That's the problem with Google and MSFT, they're always drifting in different directions, searching for another sector to get into, then half-ass it.

Wouldn't it be something if Apple just buys IBM and declares them their enterprise division? Perhaps that's what Cook is preparing to do if this partnership takes off.

It would be something.... stupid.

This is a classic risk avoidance strategy... IBM is taking on all the risk. This is no different than Apple buying a chip foundry.

Building an running a enterprise sales and support organization is really hard, and integrating with enterprise cruft that's out there is a black magic that requires a lot of hand holding... We don't want a 3rd rate genius bar organization, Apple execs not minding the store but making sales calls to 'close the deal.'

If the partnership takes off, Apple will sell maybe 3-4 million more phones a year in 3 years. That's hardly a couple weeks of production now.

Remember, most of these Enterprises don't want to buy another phone for their staff, they want to use the one their employees already own. And with iPads, the same thing. The big win here is an open door policy for Mac laptops and desktops, and that will be at best a 5 year transition, and even there, MS still owns most of the enterprise (read: AD), the gains will be slow.

Where I've heard that before is not by clients... but by employees, typically around performance review time.

The trade off for this is that most of the rank and file IBM workers are grist for the 'taking care of clients' mill.

A) Great performers [those willing to sacrifice more than 40 hours a week, family life, etc...] are moved up the chain,
B) Poor performers are replaced by offshore
C) middle of the road, The 'I'm here for a steady income, doing my job' sort of folks are told that their job is now 125% of the former job in the hopes they move into Category C
D) new hires.

I didn't quite understand your explanation on the "C" group. Are you saying that 125% effort is expected out of that group now?

I have an acquaintance that worked for IBM back in the 1970s and at that time they had a "no layoff" thing going, but when they didn't need him any more he only got offered some shit jobs north of the arctic circle or some such.

One thing that always impressed me was how IBM was not afraid to ask a shit-ton of money to lease you equipment and services. It would be like asking you to pay $100 a month to lease an iPad...and you go WOW! Where do I sign?

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

Wouldn't it be something if Apple just buys IBM and declares them their enterprise division? Perhaps that's what Cook is preparing to do if this partnership takes off.

It would be something.... stupid.

This is a classic risk avoidance strategy... IBM is taking on all the risk. This is no different than Apple buying a chip foundry.

Building an running a enterprise sales and support organization is really hard, and integrating with enterprise cruft that's out there is a black magic that requires a lot of hand holding... We don't want a 3rd rate genius bar organization, Apple execs not minding the store but making sales calls to 'close the deal.'

I totally agree! It's not in Apple's DNA to do that kind of business... While to a lot of people it may seem to be similar, it's a whole different animal. The way I see it, buying IBM and trying to run that kind of business would be like buying McDonald's so you can sell Happy Meals and ask "Would you like some iPads with that?"

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

I didn't quite understand your explanation on the "C" group. Are you saying that 125% effort is expected out of that group now?

I have an acquaintance that worked for IBM back in the 1970s and at that time they had a "no layoff" thing going, but when they didn't need him any more he only got offered some shit jobs north of the arctic circle or some such.

One thing that always impressed me was how IBM was not afraid to ask a shit-ton of money to lease you equipment and services. It would be like asking you to pay $100 a month to lease an iPad...and you go WOW! Where do I sign?

125% compound annually. (this was the 90s through 2010). Typically, "write your 1000 lines a code a week, 0 defects" Next year... 1500/0 + tech docs... year after 2200/0 + tech docs + teach a team in India what you know, year after... supervise team code quality of india team on top of your coding duties (read, you're doing 2nd shift work).

IBM managed services is amazingly expensive, but IBM can through in millions of dollars of "free services" which if timed right, make for a lot of 'heroic' praise, and customer lock-in. (and a lot of swag, like sheltered seats at the Masters, and box seats at US Open Tennis tournament).

$100 a month sounds about right. ATT charged a company I consulted at $25 a month for managing their RSA tokens. Yep. 300 a year for a $25 token, and keeping the RADIUS server up for it to talk to.

I didn't quite understand your explanation on the "C" group. Are you saying that 125% effort is expected out of that group now?

I have an acquaintance that worked for IBM back in the 1970s and at that time they had a "no layoff" thing going, but when they didn't need him any more he only got offered some shit jobs north of the arctic circle or some such.

One thing that always impressed me was how IBM was not afraid to ask a shit-ton of money to lease you equipment and services. It would be like asking you to pay $100 a month to lease an iPad...and you go WOW! Where do I sign?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff

125% compound annually. (this was the 90s through 2010). Typically, "write your 1000 lines a code a week, 0 defects" Next year... 1500/0 + tech docs... year after 2200/0 + tech docs + teach a team in India what you know, year after... supervise team code quality of india team on top of your coding duties (read, you're doing 2nd shift work).

IBM managed services is amazingly expensive, but IBM can through in millions of dollars of "free services" which if timed right, make for a lot of 'heroic' praise, and customer lock-in. (and a lot of swag, like sheltered seats at the Masters, and box seats at US Open Tennis tournament).

$100 a month sounds about right. ATT charged a company I consulted at $25 a month for managing their RSA tokens. Yep. 300 a year for a $25 token, and keeping the RADIUS server up for it to talk to.

Tom Watson's IBM came up in the era when the technology business was more about business and business relationships than technology... ...the roots of their corporate culture were already four decades old when digital computers were first built.

And even longer before people started yammering about "corporate culture" as a meme.

My uncle was a salesman there for 40 years. All through the company song book era. IBM has always been innovative (sooner or later, and sometimes wonderfully, occasionally woefully), but their whole history of relationships (human networking) in the Enterprise has carried them as far as their tech, management and patent portfolio.

Apple's a creature of a whole different age and culture, and handled well, IBM can provide them old school entry into this whole arena they'd never have elsewhere, while IBM gets to take advantage of Apple's personal tech and cachet.

Of course, if this is a successful longish-term collaboration, it will change both companies as they "get" each others' ethos....

This deal is bad because now I have to decipher corporate speak in my Apple news, like: "framework of reusable web-services that can be leveraged by mobile applications," and, "on-boarding devices", to name a few.

This is a classic risk avoidance strategy... IBM is taking on all the risk. This is no different than Apple buying a chip foundry.

Building an running a enterprise sales and support organization is really hard, and integrating with enterprise cruft that's out there is a black magic that requires a lot of hand holding... We don't want a 3rd rate genius bar organization, Apple execs not minding the store but making sales calls to 'close the deal.'

If the partnership takes off, Apple will sell maybe 3-4 million more phones a year in 3 years. That's hardly a couple weeks of production now.
Remember, most of these Enterprises don't want to buy another phone for their staff, they want to use the one their employees already own. And with iPads, the same thing. The big win here is an open door policy for Mac laptops and desktops, and that will be at best a 5 year transition, and even there, MS still owns most of the enterprise (read: AD), the gains will be slow.

Tim Cook doesn't get excited about 3-4 million additional units sold. This deal is a significant collaboration that is not fully understood yet.

It's also a bit irrelevant to the bulk of buyers who today don't even remember the events you refer to, because of forgetfulness of age, or inexperience of youth. But Bill Gates built a giant company, took his money and got out, with enough time left in life to enjoy the spoils of his business victories. The Microsoft of today is a different company. Different people, different products, different goals and different MO. Just as Apple is a very different company than it was 30 years ago--it is no longer the underdog, it no longer has its founders running the show. Unfortunately, Mr. Jobs didn't get the same opportunity to enjoy his spoils that Gates did. But that's life and the risk we take. IBM is different too. As is HP. I'm not saying that the companies are any worse now, or better, just that they're different. They endure beyond their people, as is the nature of a corporation, unless they get bought up. The sands of time will continue to shift.

The application of ancient philosophies to describe the situation is just... well out of place, to my thinking.

Before you object to me anthropomorphizing corporations, be advised that no less than the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that . . . corporations are people, my friend. :-)

Indeed, "corporations are people," brought to you by the same government that declared rabbit meat is "chicken," and that it takes no less than 2.4 cherries per slice of pie, to still be sold as "Cherry Pie."

For a long time, 2.4 became known as the average number of children families had in England (lower now, I think), though not in pie - unless you're Hansel and Gretel.